There's a lot of misinformation about how visible Starlink is. The satellites are barely visible (and only in dark skies) in their operational orbits. Next-gen versions (with albedo reductions, which they've started experimenting with) will likely be operationally invisible entirely. This doesn't mean it won't be an issue for astronomy with incredibly sensitive instruments from which almost nothing can hide. SpaceX is working with the astronomy community to try to improve the situation for (especially) ground survey campaigns.
As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.
The launch costs are nowhere near the most expensive part. By using leo they have cornered themselves into using technology that won't be available to consumers.
Oneweb is not using the same technology. They're both using phased array, but SpaceX couldn't solve the low price point like oneweb, so they have it mounted on a motor. That will surely increase cost and reduce longevity.
Oneweb is another story, and regardless of their antenna, it's not clear how they're going to monetize.
They're both using phased array. The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around. (and personally, I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX drops that eventually... they're trying to minimize installation costs to lower than current satellite dishes so the customer or unskilled worker can basically just plop it in the ground without adjustment while still optimizing the signal.)
Whether or not SpaceX "couldn't solve" the low price point is unknown. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims they can't do it. Don't be too willing to buy OneWeb's PR. "Special sauce" is marketing speak. Execution is what matters. (This works both ways... OneWeb will eventually be using reusable rockets--i.e. from Blue Origin and others--like SpaceX.)
> The motorized mount is only for pointing optimization during the installation process; it's not going to be constantly motoring around.
Please cite a source on that one. If they're putting a motor on just for installation to point to roughly the right spot, that's a ton of money spent on a motor for a single-use item. That will again point to it not being a consumer product. What's more likely is the motor is making up for the poor scan loss of the cheaper phased array.
> There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
indeed, even if you have a ground link, something radio based makes a spectacular backup. even if you've got one good high speed link available, it's unlikely you've got two whose failures are even slightly decorrlated.
Based on the prices I've been hearing, yes. $100/month or less for a GB/s connection shared between dozens of houses or more. Or an astute entrepreneur will create a cybercafe or resell it. The small businessmen can also afford it (since they already have satellite TVs), and they stand to make the most from it financially. The possibilities are many.
And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a problem of availability. Some could afford what their urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not possible.
Yes! I live 90 minutes from Washington DC and have no land-based Internet access. Our community of 59,000 has probably just 65% true broadband coverage, from one cable provider. The FCC maps are a lie, they show my home and my neighbors as having access.
As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.